the funny thing is hitler seriously had his **** together. apart from the jew killing thing he actually had a (almost) solid plan for making germany a better place for its people he created jobs, took back the rhineland which was germanies until after world war one and **** like that

The rhineland was still germanys even after world war one. It was just occupied after the loss of the war to make sure that germany wouldn't start a new war and would pay its debts. But the occupation ended allready in 1930. Germany lost Alsace-Lorraine after the first world war, which became a pat of france.

It started to get better after he increased the automobile and military budget but the plan had no long term plan. Actually he required the same thing the whole world did to dig itself out of an economic depression. One big war to save the economy.

People like you are so ******* pathetic. "Yeah, he was great, except for that whole mass murder totalitarian government thing!" ******* idiot. You deserve whatever dictator you will undoubtedly end up with.

He WAS great except for the whole mass murder thing. He was voted Time magazine's 'Man of the year', was personal friends with Mackenzie King (Canadian Prime-Minister), and was celebrated as a hero by nearly every German and many other European nations. He WAS a good person, morally; he genuinely believed that what he was doing was for the good of not only Germany, but for the world, and repeatedly stated that he did not, in fact, see England, America, or France as enemies, but simply as 'misguided' and hoped they would come around to see his vision in time. He also, technically, saved Europe from Joseph Stalin, who was a FAR worse dictator than Hitler ever was, and was also very corrupt and evil (as in, he knew what he was doing was bad and he didn't care and wanted to expand his empire for himself, not even for his family, just himself)

I'm sorry but you're such a ******* idiot. Defending Hitler because he was in a magazine and met with some leaders and was seen as a hero... Never mind the fact that he lead jews and millions of others into slavery, torture, inhumane experimentation and other fates arguably worse than death.
"OH, well he was a good guy, he though he was doing the right thing, nyahnyahnyah"
NO, you're a ******* ******* twatsucking cuntflapping dickmilk. If you think Hitler was "a good person, morally" just because he thought he was doing the right thing by purging the Jews, enslaving those who he saw fit, and forcing a socialist regime upon his people for the sake of a few promises. That's like saying a mother has the right to stab her four children because she thinks it will reunite them with their lord and heavenly savior. It's demented and despicable from any angle and no amount of nihilism or moral subjectivity will change that fact.

Jesus christ, I know there are some weird opinions on the internet, but a statement like this just spits on too many graves to count. If this is the kind of logic you bring into modern politics, then I hope you catch penile necrosis.

I'm not defending Hitler because he was in a magazine, I'm defending Hitler because, before the war and the holocaust, he was considered a great man by most of the world. Just as well, most of the other nations in the world were also anti-Semitic, and while they very well knew what Hitler was doing they didn't want to step in because 'it wasn't their problem'

Your opinions do not change what happened in history

I'm not saying anyone has a right to do anything that may harm another human being or impede their freedom, however, Hitler did not consider himself evil, and he also considered what he was doing to be for the good of his country as well as the world. When that same mother stabs her children, is she a bad mother? Yes. Does she require mental help? Yes. But is she a BAD person because she truly believed that and did what she did to help her children, not hurt them? No. Using that same logic, the jews and pols who killed their children before the S.S. rounded them up were also evil, but you and I know they weren't because they believed they were saving their children from a fate worse than death; and it is just the same with the mother and the children

I'm sorry I offended you sir, that wasn't my intention, nor was it my intention to spit on graves or disrespect those who gave their lives, but again, opinions and 'hush-hush' do not change the past or previous facts, and the fact is Hitler did not consider what he was doing to be evil. Although if you'd like, I'd be more than happy to continue the debate of morals and ethics as you seem to be a good person and have a firm grasp of them as well

You speak of Hitler from a perspective of moral relativism (softcore nihilism) and Kantian logic of "good-will-triumphs-all." I speak from a perspective of fact, history, traumatized prisoners of war, and former Nazi soldiers filled with regret for their actions. I take an ultimately Utilitarian viewpoint to these actions, which disregards intent and focuses on the effects it has on human lives. Forcing as many nations into a socialist regime as possible and killing as many as necessary along the way (over 8.8 Million individuals not counting soldiers or collateral) does not make someone a good person, regardless of their intentions. And my point isn't about socialism, either, it's about how he went about it. Shoe-horning a static ideology onto as much of mankind as possible can only be described as the work of a madman.

Believe me, I am not a nihilist. I've spoken with nihilists before and found them some of the most infuriating people on Earth. Just as well, morals ARE relative, ethics ARE subjective, as they change from person to person, culture to culture, and year to year, denying this only means you believe your views are the best and all there should be

The true Death Toll of WW2 is somewhere around 11.2 million, that includes the war itself as well as dead German soldiers. Stalin killed over 10.6 million HIMSELF in Russia, and he did it because he wanted more power, with total disregard for his people or country, and he was on the side of the GOOD GUYS. That alone should tell you how 'good' they actually were (that, along with the fact they totally disregarded all of his crimes which were arguably worse than Hitlers, all because they wanted him as an ally, and more-so they were also anti-Semitic and didn't care about the jews who died, and only joined the war after Hitler began conquering other nations, saving the jews was just a side-effect. Even Canada, claimed to be one of the friendliest countries on Earth, turned jews away back to the Nazis, well knowing the fate they would have. And then the allied countries tend to praise themselves for their 'good nature' and 'honourable warfare', giving themselves pats on the back for being so 'humanitarian').

If that were the case, hypothetically, if someone created a disease with the sole intent that it would travel (airborn) and brutally kill all those who breathed in it in a horrible fashion, set it up around the world, and then sat back with glee as he watched it go into the atmosphere, well knowing the pain and suffering it would cause...and it ended up curing cancer totally by accident, and proving entirely harmless to all other living things, would you call the man who invented it a good person, or a saint?

I have no problems with believing that Stalin was worse, but I stand by the fact that Hitler was one of the most evil men of that era. Also, moral relativism IS gateway nihilism, as it rejects the proposition of objective morality. The only difference is the labeling of "morals" as "preferences," which can also easily be rooted into the subconscious.

As for Utilitarianism, a distinction must be made between two different kinds of morality. (There are three if you believe in a God or higher power, but that's a different conversation entirely.) The first one is public morality, and the second is personal morality. Public morality weighs more on actions and events themselves and have relevance to the outside world, personal morality weighs your intentions and thoughts about yourself, and only has relevance to that individual or those he chooses to share it with. Releasing a pathogen with the intent to kill, but unwittingly curing cancer, would have high public moral value, but low personal moral value. Utilitarianism acknowledges both of these kinds of morality, but says that public morality takes precedence over personal. In other words, knowing both the man's intent of, and the final outcome of releasing this pathogen, you would still wish for the event to take place due to the "greatest happiness" principle. Also note that this doesn't necessitate a sort of omniscient view of the future, it's a retrospective opinion that, given the circumstances of that event, you would be glad that it happened. Whether this person would be punished or not depends on evidence of his actual intent and the danger of him trying it again.

But believing that morals are constant and static is clearly incorrect. It's often said that the universal constant is change; the laws of Entropy. This applies to morals and ethics as well, which near constantly change from person to person, culture to culture, and year to year.

Well in that event, couldn't we be having this entire conversation again should the Nazi's have one? The main reason they are perceived as so evil is simple because they lost; it's a common fact that winners write the history books and embellish their own good efforts while demoralizing the enemy's. If the Nazis had won, who's to say it wouldn't be a better future for the grand majority of people? And if that was such the case, wouldn't you have wanted them to win in the first place? If the rule is that the needs of the majority outweigh the needs of the minority, what if he considered and fixed the needs of the majority more than our government and winners do now? Would you still be holding this same view and conversation with me? It's a common fact of life that someone must ALWAYS be on the bottom for someone else to be on top, this is simply the way it works and the way it must be, even for everyone to be happy there needs to be at least one person who is miserable, and potentially vice versa, it's just the basic laws of life that every action breeds an equal and opposite reaction. The reason I bring this up is because while the Nazis threw the jews under the bus, WE threw the Germans under the bus and they are STILL paying for it. Yet, for some reason, this is considered more 'good and righteous' than when the Nazis did it to jews. Is it because Hitler gave them the short end of the stick out of spite? If so, we easily gave the Germans the short end for that same reason.

I'm not turning a blind eye to the atrocities that America committed during world war 2, either. Internment camps and Hiroshima were two morally bankrupt decisions made on America's side. Wrecking Germany's economy with demands from the Allies was a punishment that hurt more than just the Nazis, and I'm not here to justify that action either. My point still remains that Hitler was a madman without moral justification.

Morality, in reality, does not change, and has not ever changed. The manner in which we try to achieve morality, and what morality takes precedence over other morality, does change. The basic principle of morality, from my perspective at least, is the Utilitarian one of the Greatest Happiness principle, meaning that you should act in such a way that brings about the greatest possible happiness in any given circumstance. This is a moral objective that may launch action in wildly different directions, depending entirely on what makes a particular group or society happy. This stance is a complicated one, as there is no real way to measure one person's happiness against another's, but it at least asks us to evaluate our choices and ask ourselves "Who will this help? Who will this hurt?"

Assuming Hitler's Aryan utopia did eventually win out and lead to peace on earth for the rest of Mankind's years, then he would have been the good guy making tough decisions for the betterment of humanity. But that didn't happen, and it never would have happened, because Hitler was delusional with power, and cared little for the lives of anyone outside his circle of influence. In a sense, his actions are worse because he failed, because every man woman and child that died by his word has inexorably died in vain. Their corpses didn't make the world any better, the attempted genocide didn't achieve any cause, and those deaths didn't bring about any happiness, except for the maggots that were given a meal. I agree many things are wrong with America, but Hitler was worse.

Eh, then this conversation has reached a point of total stand-still. Not because of any lack of logic of rational or politeness, but simply because we have two opposing views that neither are willing to compromise. Even so, you can keep your view and I shall keep mine and we can agree to disagree.

I also disagree with your last statement, as Hitler was the very essence of a patriot in every sense of the word. He loved his people and he loved his country, and despite what you may think or have been told he really did have the best at heart, whether it was for good or for evil. The fact of the matter is, he wanted to make the world better as do many people, and he did no different throwing a certain group of people under the bus than we do every day; to me, the major difference between Hitler then and us now is that Hitler, back then, was doing what he thought was best for his people, while our governments now are mostly doing what's best for themselves (just as well, one could say that WW2 was a blessing in disguise, as it got America out of a depression, rocketed engineering, medicine, and nearly every area of science off the charts, and gave us a massive boost in population despite the death toll)

I hate to be one of those high-fiving "you go girl!" cunts, but thanks for intelligently putting together a response that I was too angry to sit down and come up with. It's nice to know I was on the right track even though I got pissed off, if that makes any sense.

He was delusional, during the war he lost his mind. Nevertheless he belived he what he did was for the better of his beloved Germany. He didn't conquer Europe for his own sake, but for the sake of Germany which was devestated after WW1.

In the end, yes he did alot of HORRIBLE things, but not because he wanetd to, because he believed he HAD to.

Quite so. Don't mistake me, sir; he did a lot of horrible things and it's good that he died, but if he chose a different path, or became a better person for the world, he could have done amazing things

But morals and ethics change every 50 or so years, and also through every culture. When our founding fathers took slaves they believed they weren't doing anything wrong, and were even doing good when they DIDN'T whip their slaves or gave them a pittance of the money they earned, and so on, so fourth with every other culture

And 50 years from now, people will look back and point out a lot of the things we do today are 'morally and ethically incorrect', and such will continue down the line forever. It's just the way it is, because morals and ethics are subjective

Morals and Ethics change over time, they are subjective, changing upon the whims of an individual. They change extremely with every person, every culture, and every 50 or so years. Because committing genocide in the name of your god was considered holy and moral by the majority, it WAS \holy and moral'. Your opinions of right and wrong do not change history

depends on what you mean by majority, because im pretty sure only the specific religious group saw it as moral and not even the entire group.

i know ethics change over time and morals are subjective, but there are some things that are pretty standard, such as killing for no reason is wrong. when you let hatred and bigotry guide your actions, you've already become immoral.

We already covered that morals change from person to person and culture to culture. Nearly every person in the crusades, whether christian or muslim, considered their cause to be holy and just despite how much innocent blood was shed

Eh, one could say you've perfectly described the death penalty, which has been in effect for thousands of years

And who are you to define what it is to be 'moral'? You are just one person, after-all. Does your opinion truly trump over the hundreds of thousands of millions that have been through-out history? You really don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying. Morals, the very THING you are talking about, the very BASIC principle of 'morality' is SUBJECTIVE. It CHANGES, it has NO absolute or base line. If you consider your cause to be 'good', then your cause IS good to YOU. If others consider your cause to be 'evil', it is evil to THEM, do you understand now?

Indeed they have been debated, but that doesn't mean 'people are coming to terms with the fact it isn't moral'. They're simply changing what they believe the fate of prisoners should be. It is 'for no reason', after-all, killing someone changes nothing, it doesn't teach them anything, it only takes them out of the picture entirely.

And just to let you know, it frustrates me that you don't understand that just because you see something a certain way, doesn't make it concrete. Besides, if you actually read without bias or predetermined anger, you would find I'm not defending their position at all, I'm simply saying that Hitler didn't consider himself an evil person, and effectively considered himself a 'good' person. Considering my view of morals, he is a 'good person' as he considered himself to be, just like he is an 'evil person' by how others consider him to be. You see?

i agree that morality is subjective, but what is considered moral overall isn't a person-to-person thing, it is determined by mass opinion and mass opinion has never approved genocide. one ideology at a time may have, but that doesn't make it moral overall.

also calm down.... jeez.

the point of the death penalty is to take someone out of the picture completely. thats the reason. the debate is whether or not the law has the authority to decide if someone is fit to live in society, not whether or not the death penalty has a point.

thats not what im saying, if you actually read without bias or predetermined anger, you would find that im not trying to say that i have the authority to decide what is moral, but that mass opinion does. also the thing that you wrote that pissed me off the most was this: "he did no different throwing a certain group of people under the bus than we do every day"
reducing his heinous acts to a euphemism and then saying we do that every day is fallacious and despicable.

Ideology is what makes morals effective, one way or another. And I cannot and will not calm down, as I've been explaining this to many people over the course of the day

In your country perhaps, but not in others

I was referring to how the allies threw the Nazis under the bus, despite the fact they were so willing to use Nazi research, technology, man-power, and weapons to their advantage (whilst still calling themselves the heroes and spreading obvious untrue propoganda to make many Nazis seem worse than they were. I.E. Making lamps out of human skin and what-not...); similar to how the Nazis threw the jews under the bus as the main cause for crime and depravity

I'm not missing the point at all. I understand the horrible things they did, but that doesn't give anyone a right to brush the good they did under the rug

Okay, so...there were videos, pictures, documentations, and testimonies that that was, in fact, a lamp made from human skin....yet none of that is provided? I know there is a picture at the bottom, but there is zero documentation or testing by doctors (pictured) that proves it is, in fact, a human lamp. If you're talking about Buchenwald (a Nazi camp for jewish prisoners), which was run by a supremely cruel and corrupt Karl Koch and his wife, then it's more believable (as these two DID make 'souvenirs' out of the dead such as shrunken heads), however, that doesn't mean the Nazis condoned it. As a matter of fact, Koch was investigated by S.S. troops and was arrested and tried tor cruelty and crimes against man-kind (yes, he was given this sentence BY S.S. and other Nazis, because they found his actions and treatment of people abhorrent)

Even the "Nazi's making human soap" is most likely a myth and propaganda unto itself, as human soap was and has never been produced in vast quantities and was proved to be quite ineffective (which explains why). I understand the Nazi's may have been cruel, but they would have never done something horrible 'for the **** of it'. The very REASON the Nazi's were so feared was because they were so practical and brutally efficient, so such a thing wouldn't match their style or tactics at all

the good things they did are no reason to brush the horrible things they did under the rug. i can't believe im trying to show someone why you shouldn't defend nazis.

i was just going off of your example, quit harping on the lamp, even if it's not real it doesn't really matter because i consider the calculated killing of millions of people much more heinous anyway. there were also lots of worse things that the nazis did condone. ever hear of this guy? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele
"In another "experiment", he connected a 7-year-old girl's urinary tract to her colon"

I never said they were, nor AM I brushing the wrong they did under the rug. I'm simply saying you need to be mindful of propaganda and lies told about them; is it really much of a stretch to believe people would lie about conduct coming from Nazi's?

I'm not defending them either (although one could say that everyone deserves a fair defence, no matter what their crimes are. Don't worry, I don't actually believe that). What I'm defending is truth, and the truth of the matter is morals are subjective.

I wasn't 'harping' on the lamp. You mentioned it, I refuted it, simple. If it doesn't matter, why bring it up at all? You were using it as an example of the atrocities they committed, and I simply informed you that your example was mistaken; I'm sure you can find another.

Yes I did hear of him, and after reading all that it's safe to say that he was completely off his rocker. However it also seems much of his work was 'hush-hush'. I'm not saying he snuck in what he's done, but I do get the impression many officials turned a blind eye to his conduct as it wasn't exactly what he was supposed to be doing. Still, as a doctor he should have been more interested in research and development than sheer power and cruelty, and to this end I believe he should have been tried to the fullest extent of the law. What do you think?

how about nothing evil happens in the first place? how about we dont brainwash people for causes based on hate? is that completely lost on you? i know people have done wrong, i know other genocides have happened, why defend any of their moral motives? its ridiculous. they're all horrible and none should be defended.

the only thing i've learned is that you're an arrogant nazi or something

i understand the rationale behind Germany's actions, but while the people believed that jews really were the problem, hitler made them think that (brainwashed) because he was an insane racist.
yes, other countries didn't really care at first because they were antisemitic too, but you have to remember, the nazis were the ones that were actually doing the killing.

there's always corrupt people on government, i know that, but there's one big difference between the countries you mentioned and nazi germany: NAZI GERMANY EXECUTED THE SYSTEMATIC EXTERMINATION OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FROM SPECIFIC GROUPS OUT OF RACISM AND IRRATIONAL HATRED. NAZISM IS BY FAR ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS AND EVIL IDEOLOGIES OF ALL TIME

So I suppose it comes down to a single question, which is better: To do an evil action while believing it is good? Or to let evil happen while knowing it is wrong?

Russia did that too, during WW2. As a matter of fact, more innocent people died under Stalin's hand than died under Hitler's. The difference being that Hitler truly and firmly believed it was best for his country, while Stalin only wanted more power (he also killed jews as well, not just his own people). Many religions have also killed more through-out history

And so here I suppose we've come full circle. Thank you for debating with me on this subject, although I do not believe it can go any further than this. I certainly hope you've learned a thing or two, as I have from you; would you like to leave me with any parting words? I probably won't be replying, but know I will read them

why would there be a need for propaganda when their real actions are already so heinous?

im not denying that morals are subjective, but those who believe in the extermination of races are either brainwashed or insane.

you mentioned it first and you didn't refute anything. you were using it as an example of false propaganda and i tried to show you that it wasn't false. and of course i can find others, i just linked the lamp story because, again, YOU mentioned it.

yes he was ******* insane and everyone was well aware of what he was doing

So? The Italian government pays off the Mafia to do illegal work they cannot do themselves. The American government breaks its own laws every day and violates rights to privacy and human decency. The Eastern European governments gauge civilians, steal from them, arrest them unlawfully, and give themselves tax breaks. I'm not even going to MENTION the crimes of the Russian, Chinese, or Israeli governments

EVERY power turns a blind eye to misconduct when it supports them. The Nazis were no different, and you cannot hate them anymore than you must hate other governments (and if you say that what Joseph did was worse than what our governments do, I don't feel I should remind you that North American police are accused of more rapes, beatings, murders, unlawful arrest, and corruption than nearly every other government. America alone allows its soldiers to rape and torture even innocent civilians in times of war and in their internment camps they deny nearly every basic human right and take great pleasure in doing so. England turns a blind eye to religious killings and mutilation rituals of innocent civilians because they do not want to get involved. Russia has rigged elections all the time and if anyone tries to be lawful or fair about it, they 'disappear', never to be seen again). Every country in the WORLD has done horrible crimes against humanity, beyond forgiveness and retribution, but even you and I turn a blind eye to it right now because it's in our favour and usual best interest. So don't tell me that if you were in a position of assistant to Joseph, you would have stopped him. It's easy to be lawful, just, and righteous when you're not directly involved

The fact that you must ask that question proves you have very little understanding of the art behind warfare, more-so it means you've done very little research on your own time. Understandable, of course; nobody could hold that against you, nor do I.

Very true, but you're forgetting that The Treaty of Versailles put the Germans in a VERY hard position, so much so that their depression was even worse than Americas. When Hitler rose to power, he brought them out of it and made them a super-power, AND he blamed the depression on the jews. By very virtue of him being able to bring them out of such a down-point, they figured he must have known what he was talking about. People to go insane lengths to preserve their family, life, and heritage when it all seems like it's about to be snatched away from them. Of course this is no excuse, but it's part of the rationale. Just as well, the 'Final Solution' was called so for a reason. Originally Hitler simply wanted to ship the jews off or move them to other countries, just get them out of Germany; but because of the Treaty, they lacked the proper funds to do so and the cheapest, most efficient way of getting them out was killing them. England, Canada, France, America, Russia, and most countries also turned a blind eye to their conduct and didn't care for the fate of the jews. It wasn't JUST a 'Nazi problem', it was a WORLD problem that nobody wanted to take responsibility for. It is EVERYONE'S fault that it happened, not JUST Hitlers or the Nazis, and what makes ME sick is that despite the fact it's everyone's fault, all these Allied countries make themselves out to be the hero of the tale and brag about how humanitarian they are, all while CONTINUING to turn a blind-eye to war criminals provided they work for the government.

That's true, I did mention it first. But I already said (and have proof that) chances are it was just a myth and rumour. And while it COULD have been true, it certainly wasn't a 'Nazi' thing, it was Koch

People say Hitler had his **** together because of how effective the propaganda was on the German people but Stresemann actually had his **** together & Germany was on the mend 1924-1929 but then the Depression came and ****** things over double time. He reduced unemployment massively but it came at a price that Germany was charging into war, and the totalitarian state didn't help. And he was also a pretty crappy general (Siege of Stalingrad). His only redeeming factor was public speaking
tl;dr Even if you take the anti-Semitism part away from Hitler, he wasn't that great.

yeah,hitler made jobs by throwing all unemployed people into the military or the labour camps,women where removed from their jobs to stay at home so men could take their place. although making the autobahns created a lot of work ,realistically the standard of living rose so high to the point it could have put germany into recession again because hitlers unemployment figures where lies and too much money was wasted on the military! government policies where just lies too...they promised hard workers a VW beetle and nobody ever received 1 !! however he did get **** done but i could not imagine in the long term it would have faired well!

Eh, nobody else was much of a problem. In much of Hitler's 'conquest', if you notice the pattern and pay attention, he was actually just unifying countries that were a part of Germany during the Second Reich. Nor were he or the Nazi's that racist (allegedly), as there were African Nazis, Hindu Nazis, Muslim Nazis (which Hitler personally congratulated and gave medals to), Polish Nazis, Turkish Nazis, Japanese Nazis, Russian Nazis, English Nazis, and even some Jewish Nazis (the last as evidence in the comic book 'Maus', which tells the tale of a real Holocaust survivor, and he personally talks about how their were many Jewish Nazi's who were treated very well, and Jewish people related to them were also treated rather well, and if you did good work you were allowed plenty of food and warm cabins even as war prisoners)

if i ever get a time machine id go back to help hitler win ww2 and tell him about the future, how corrupt and ****** up things are today, even the technology in the phone in my pocket would cause a massive jump in the science of the time aiding the progress of the future.
kinda like the new Wolfenstein game except i hope they wouldn't be as oppressive